§

International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

09422952 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2015)
International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

7 Cited authorities

  1. Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.

    106 F.3d 976 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 159 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that explaining the state of the art and providing well-known information found in textbooks was insufficient for joint inventorship

  2. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

    800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 40 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

  3. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas

    362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 11 times   9 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1339. DECIDED: March 24, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 246 F.Supp.2d 460, Leonie M. Brinkema, J. Christopher N. Sipes, Covington Burling, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John M. Whealan, Solicitor; and Raymond T. Chen, Associate

  4. Davis v. Reddy

    620 F.2d 885 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 22 times

    Appeal No. 80-506. May 15, 1980. Rehearing Denied July 10, 1980. James B. Blanchard, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record for appellants; Maurice J. Jones, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz., of counsel. Charles W. Bradley, New York City, attorney of record for appellee; Paul J. Ethington, Reising, Ethington, Barnard, Perry Brooks, Southfield, Mich., Russel C. Wells, The Bendix Corp., Southfield, Mich., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge

  5. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  6. Section 256 - Correction of named inventor

    35 U.S.C. § 256   Cited 672 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Permitting correction of inventorship "[w]henever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part"

  7. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 22 times   44 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A